MR. SNOW: Good morning, everybody. Good to have you here on such a
lovely day. Let me begin with the President's schedule.

The President had his normal briefings early this morning. He met with
the Secretary of Treasury at 9:00 a.m. At 11:00 a.m. he will meet with
the Emir of Kuwait, there will be pool coverage at the bottom. Also
there will be a working lunch with the Emir afterward. At 1:20 p.m.
there will be remarks on the global war on terror, and we will talk in
some length about that in just a minute; Fran Townsend is joining me to
go through that.

In addition, a personnel announcement: Mark McClellan, who is the
Administrator for the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, is
announcing his resignation. He'll be missed by the President and the
entire administration. He's been talking for some time about wanting to
get back with his family -- no, this isn't one of those cheesy excuses;
it's the real thing. The President has the highest regard for Mark
McClellan and appreciates the work he's done for the administration,
first as FDA Commissioner and most recently at CMS. He's led the
successful modernization of the Medicare prescription drug benefit and
worked to modernize Medicare and Medicaid in ways that will help seniors
and other beneficiaries get better health care at a better price.

We will not be doing a televised briefing, mainly because we've got all
sorts of scheduling conflicts today. However, I think you'll have the
President on camera for enough to take care of your video needs for the
day, and audio needs, as well.

Q No briefing?

MR. SNOW: No, no on-camera briefing.

Q You're going to the lunch?

MR. SNOW: I'm going to the lunch, that's why we're not doing the
briefing -- because after that, then we get into trying to do a briefing
at 4:00 p.m., and that's not going to work for us.

A couple of other things. One story that made several broadcasts and
also the news, and I thought I would go ahead and respond to it, is a
letter that was sent to the President by Democratic leaders in the House
and Senate, by about 10 of them. In one sense, we welcome the letter
because it actually serves as a reiteration and ratification of many of
the things the administration is doing. Now, what happened is that the
10 members urged four courses of action for the President. I will list
three of them at the outset.

One, transitioning the U.S. mission in Iraq to counterterrorism
training, logistics and force protection. Second, working with Iraqi
leaders to disarm the militias and develop a broad based and sustainable
political settlement. And, third, convening an international conference
and contact group to support a political settlement in Iraq. I've left
out some of the verbiage, but you've all seen the letter.

Those are all three things that we've been doing, and I will give you a
little bit of chapter and verse in a moment. There is a fourth
condition, which was beginning the phased redeployment of U.S. forces
from Iraq before the end of this year -- I'll get to that in a moment.
But let me give you a little bit of detail on the first three.

Beginning with transitioning the mission in Iraq to counterterrorism
training, logistics and force protection -- that, in fact, is precisely
what we have been doing. When you talk about training Iraqi forces,
Iraqi forces are engaged primarily in counterterrorism. We've seen them
taking the lead in some of the fights in Baghdad and elsewhere. One of
the reasons is it's well-known that Iraqis sometimes are going to get
better intelligence than Americans and they're going to be effective at
doing counterterrorism and force protection action.

For the last three years we've seen substantial success in training up
those forces, and it's increasing. As a matter of fact, one of the
reports mentioned by the Democratic leaders, the Defense Department
report to Congress, "Measuring Stability and Security in Iraq," mentions
the training successes, and I believe General Casey had some fairly
optimistic things to say about the training last week.

In addition, when it comes to counterterrorism operations, it also
reflects the fact that we understand that Iraq is a central focus to the
war on terror. And I think that's also something that is implicit
within this letter, that it's absolutely vital to win the war against
terror. And you do that, first, by allowing democracy to stand up in
Iraq.

The second point, working with leaders to disarm militias and develop a
broad-based and sustainable political settlement -- again, implicit in
that is the importance of a successful democracy. But also, we have, in
fact, been working with the Iraqi leaders to disarm militias. That is
something that was mentioned when we made our trip to Baghdad. It's
also something that Prime Minister Maliki has made one of his key
priorities.

In addition, the Prime Minister has talked about political
reconciliation. There are two ways of dealing with counterterrorism.
One is to say to terrorists, you've got to make a choice. You can take
the violent path, or, you have the opportunity and the option, as well,
of going the political route. And there has been every opportunity --
or there's been a continuing effort to make sure that the political path
has been made available to one and all.

As for amending the constitution, which was one of the recommendations,
that's something the Iraqi people can do. There's the suggestion of
amending the constitution for equitable power-sharing. Prime Minister
Maliki, again, has talked about that. There's an amendment process, and
the Iraqis will move forward on that.

Finally, in terms of "new direction," talks about convening an
international conference and contact group. Return again to the trip to
Baghdad, where it was announced that there would be an international
compact between Iraq, with the mediation of the United Nations to get
other nations in as donors and supporters of Iraq, not only for economic
investment, but also rebuilding infrastructure and creating some of the
basis for a stable and successful political regime and democratic
political regime.

So having said all that, the new directions document really does, in
fact, support what the President has been saying. And I'm glad that the
leaders have taken notice of this.

As far as the phased redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq before the
end of the year, I'm looking at my watch and it says it's September 5th.
Anybody who understands the way redeployments go understands if you're
talking about a phased redeployment, at least according to these folks,
they'd have to start cutting orders yesterday. But, in fact, a phased
redeployment doesn't make sense unless you have a reason for doing so.

We want to see the troops come home, but we want to see the troops come
home under the proper circumstances, which is successful completion of
the task of helping the Iraqi democracy stand up, defend itself and
sustain itself.

One other note, this does not apply to all the signatories of the letter
-- but it is interesting to note -- and I think it provides an
opportunity for Democrats to express themselves on how we move forward
in the war on terror, and that is going to be something that we're going
to be discussing throughout the week.

There have been some in the Democratic Party who have argued against the
Patriot Act, against the terror surveillance program, against
Guantanamo. In other words, there are some people who say that we
shouldn't fight the war, we should not detain -- we shouldn't apprehend
al Qaeda, we shouldn't detain al Qaeda, we shouldn't question al Qaeda,
and we shouldn't listen to al Qaeda. In other words, they're all for
winning the war on terror, but they're all against -- they're against
providing the tools for winning that war.

And we think it's a perfect opportunity for Democratic leaders to say,
no, we are serious about winning the war. We have now reiterated some
of the basic precepts of administration policy and also the policy put
together by generals over the months of the engagement in Iraq. And we
look forward to working with members of Congress to figure out how best
to prevent terrorists from coming here, but, more importantly, how to
defeat terrorism. And we're going to talk with Fran about that in a
minute.

Finally, one other point, which is, there is a reiteration of a call to
replace or have Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld stand down. The
President strongly supports the Defense Secretary. It's not going to
happen. Creating Don Rumsfeld as a boogeyman may make for good
politics, but would make for a lousy strategy at this time. And,
furthermore, if you listen to the speech that Secretary Rumsfeld gave
last week, it was not only thoughtful, but comprehensive about trying to
frame the ongoing war against terror, and also the war going on in Iraq
and Afghanistan.

So this, again, is something that the President would love to see
members of both Houses of Congress returning to that sense of
cooperation we had after September 11th, where the real goal was not to
try to hand out pink slips at the Pentagon, but instead to win the war
on terror in a way that is going to make not only America safer, but
also the rest of the world safer so that democracy can take firm root
throughout the globe.

Having said that, let me just mention -- and you have all received PDFs,
and we're going to try to get your hard copies of this, which is the
National Strategy for Combating Terrorism. Just a couple of brief
notes, then I'm going to ask Fran to come up and answer questions
because she has much more specific and comprehensive knowledge than I.
But this is a follow-on document to one that was originally published in
February of 2003.

Since February of 2003, obviously, we have come a long way in the war on
terror, and the enemy has also responded in numerous ways. To the
charge that somehow this administration is staying the course, we are
going to be laying out ways just to remind people that, far from staying
the course, we have been trying to respond vigorously, aggressively,
with ingenuity and with determination, using any and all means at our
disposal, and also cooperation with members of the international
community, to foil terrorists who constantly change their tactics,
change their aims and even change some of the arguments that they have
educed for trying to go after people who are guilty of committing the
sin of trying to live in free societies.

This document lays out a long-term strategy which is democracy and
freedom. It also lays out short-term strategies, in terms of going
after the lifeblood of terrorism. That includes the ideological battle,
where the Internet and the media are central battlefields, where there's
an attempt to try to shape public perceptions of what's going on, and
also to build adherence throughout the world. There is finance, where
we have been working to sort of choke off the ability of terrorists to
gain the finance that they need to go ahead and commit acts of terror.

It means going after some of the ideological presuppositions -- make the
argument -- have it so that people around the world are going to say,
no, we don't want you anymore, we don't want you here. We've already
seen the people of Iraq do it with an election. We do not want to make
the argument that there are people who will always and eternally be our
enemies. We have seen Iraq and Libya in the last few years move from
the terrorist watch list to being some of our aides and supporters in
conducting the war on terror, and we invite one and all to join not only
the war against terror, but for democracy.

There are many more nuances to the report, but rather than going through
them all -- and I think most of you at least now had an opportunity to
take a look at it, I'd like to invite Fran up. Here's how we're going
to work it, I would like to have questions directed toward Fran on this,
exhaust all the questions, and then we'll move on to other topics that
are of interest to you.

Fran.

MS. TOWNSEND: I thought I would take a moment to sort of set the stage
of what you can expect in the President's speech this morning -- this
afternoon.

You will hear the President talk about the goals, the objectives and the
strategic intent of al Qaeda, in their own words and the way they
describe their strategic intent. The President will address both the
issues of Sunni extremism -- we talk about al Qaeda, but al Qaeda is one
and probably the most prominent example of the Sunni extremist element,
but they have their affiliates and there are others. So the President
will talk about Sunni extremism. He will also talk about Shia
extremism.

Let's remember that Hezbollah, prior to September 11th, was responsible
for the deaths of more Americans than any other terrorist group.
There's the '83 Beirut barracks bombing, which was responsible for the
murder of 241 United States Marines, and then the '96 attack on Khobar
Towers, killing 19 American military. And so the President will talk
about that.

He will talk about state sponsorship. We have less state sponsors of
terrorism today than we did at the beginning of the President's first
term. That said, the state sponsorship of terrorism as a tool to
execute and implement foreign policy objectives is unacceptable, and the
President will speak to that.

We have enjoyed many successes in the war on terror. We've heard the
President say often that we are safer, but not yet safe. We are denying
terrorists safe havens. We have captured and killed their leaders. We
have disrupted finances. We've made it difficult for them to move, to
travel, to communicate. We've taken advantage of their travel and
communications. They can no longer operate freely.

But there is a great deal left to be done, which bring us, really, to
the point of looking at the strategy. Tony quite rightly said that the
enemy has evolved, and we define the enemy and the strategy as a
transnational terrorist movement of extremist organizations, networks
and individuals, including their state and non-state supporters, which
have two things in common -- first, that they exploit Islam; and,
second, that they use terrorism to achieve their ideological ends.

We look at -- we talk about both the long-term and the short-term? The
long-term you heard Tony allude to about the long-term antidote to
terrorism is freedom and democracy. But how do we attack it, how do we
defeat it in the short-term. There are a number of things laid out in
the report -- I'd summarize this in a way, of course, our first priority
is to prevent attacks. But how do you do that? Well, what you look at
is, what is the terrorist organization's vulnerabilities? Well, their
vulnerabilities are those things that they absolutely need to operate
and survive. We break that down: You need leadership, you need foot
soldiers, you need money, you need communications, you need weapons.
And so what you do is you look for various ways to attack their
vulnerabilities.

And on defense, we have established the -- the President and the
reorganization of the federal government, established the Department of
Homeland Security. We have -- one of their critical responsibilities is
to defend targets. We have put all sorts of measures in place to make
it more difficult for them to not only travel around the world, but
certainly to enter the United States. We have undertaken efforts to
protect critical infrastructure.

And on the weapons front, the report talks about, in greater detail than
I think we've made public before, our efforts to deny terrorists access
and use of WMD, and the importance of that strategy -- to deter their
use, to prevent an attack, to deny them access to materials, to disrupt
their ability to move those materials about.

And then, lastly, really, is the denial of sanctuary and support; that
is, we cannot let a terrorist organization take control of a country
again, like happened in Afghanistan. We cannot -- and we must hold
responsible those who not only would give them such safe haven, but
those that would provide sanctuary from which a terrorist can operate.
And the President has been clear that we will hold those who provide
them sanctuary responsible just as we do the terrorists, themselves.

Now, safe havens come in many forms. I think mostly we think of them as
being physical, but they are not just physical. We must look to
eradicate legal safe havens -- that is where there are legal regimes, we
must work with those host governments. We must deny them the
uncontested use of cyberspace and the Internet. And we have made great
strides in denying them use of international financial systems.

So you've got the document. You will hear the President's speech later
today in far greater detail than I've given you. But with that I think
I'll turn it over and take your questions.

I should tell you, I also have with me my deputy for combating
terrorism, Juan Zarate, and Senior Director, Dr. Michele Malvesti, both
of whom worked with me on the report.

Q Ms. Townsend, is Osama bin Laden still considered a threat? I
didn't read his name in the report.

MS. TOWNSEND: The greatest threat to us is this ideology of violent
extremism, and its greatest public proponent is Osama bin Laden. Bin
Laden remains the number one target, in terms of our efforts, but he's
not the only target. We care about others who advocate the use of
violence to reach ideological objectives, like Dr. Zawahiri. Zarqawi is
no longer with us, so he's off that list. But I give those to you as
other examples.

Yes.

Q Can you discuss any domestic efforts to reach out to the Muslim
community here in order to try and prevent some --

MS. TOWNSEND: You know, Elaine, I, myself, have gone to the Washington
Islamic Center and come to really appreciate how much, from those
visits, just listening -- not talking, but listening to those in the
American Muslim community can provide. I know Juan Zarate has done the
same thing. I think what you'll find is there are efforts throughout
the U.S. government. I know my colleagues in the FBI have enormous
outreach programs through their field offices. And I think that there
have been real efforts throughout and across the government, almost in
each place you would imagine any American to come in contact with their
government, we've made outreach efforts.

I would say to you that that's not limited, though, to the federal
government. And perhaps most importantly, I've been impressed at the
state and local level with police departments. A good example is the
NYPD, which is the one I'm most familiar with, and their outreach
efforts, which are actually quite extensive and very impressive.

Q What about the President's Islamo-fascism? The president of the
Islamic Society of North America, the new president, said last week she
didn't think that was particularly helpful.

MS. TOWNSEND: What the President was trying to capture was this idea of
using violence to achieve ideological ends -- and that's wrong.
Regardless of what label you pin on it, it is this form of radical
extremism that really wants to deny people freedom and impose a
totalitarian vision of society on everyone, that we object to.

Q Who coined the Islamo-fascist slogan, and what does it mean --

MS. TOWNSEND: I'm not sure I could tell you who coined it --

Q -- in this administration?

MS. TOWNSEND: I'm not sure I could tell you if there is a single author
or who coined it. And again, Helen, I guess what I was saying to Elaine
is, it's meant to try and capture what is objectionable about the
ideology; that is, the use of violence to achieve these ideological
ends.

Q Well, why that -- why Islamic? Does it make it a religious
connotation?

MS. TOWNSEND: Absolutely. There are many peace-loving Muslims around
the world.

Q So it is a religious war?

MS. TOWNSEND: No, I didn't say that. It's not a religious war. What
this is about is there is a battle within Islam, itself, for -- in terms
of what the ideology is, and there are many devout, pious Muslims, many
of whom I've met in my travels around the Muslim world, who are deeply
offended by this advocating of violence --

Q But why can't you explain the --

MS. TOWNSEND: Helen, we're going to give somebody else a chance.

Yes, sir.

Q Thank you, Ms. Townsend. Over the weekend we saw the film clips of
al Qaeda Adam Gadahn for the fourth time in a broadcast. Last time I
checked, he's still an American citizen, he has not renounced his
citizenship. If he were to be apprehended, would he be tried for
treason in this country?

MS. TOWNSEND: I'm not going to -- because I'm no longer with the
Justice Department, much as I loved my time there, I'm not going to do a
hypothetical and try to commit my colleagues at the Justice Department
as to whether or not they believe they've got sufficient evidence. I
will tell you, the reason Adam Gadahn can make video statements and have
them broadcast around the world is because he enjoys freedom of speech,
which is part of a democratic -- it's interesting, al Qaeda sees
democracy as a huge threat, as we know from their statements. But
they're willing to take advantage of democratic freedoms to espouse
their hateful ideology. Adam Gadahn is one example. His statement, as
you point out, is not the first, and I doubt it will be the last, until
he is brought to justice.

Q Well, when you say, "brought to justice," then, is he on the list
of wanted, along with some of the other names that are mentioned in the
report?

MS. TOWNSEND: I can't -- if he was and it was not made public, I
couldn't comment on it. And so I'd refer you to the FBI in terms of
what their investigative efforts are related to him.

Yes, sir.

Q Can you say in what ways the National Strategy has changed or
progressed since your last publication?

MS. TOWNSEND: One of the things I think we've found is that we now
believe it's not just a single, centralized organization, but it's this
network. That's why you heard me say it's this transnational movement
of organizations, networks, and individuals. We find that as we've
enjoyed some success in the war, the enemy has evolved. And so you see
we have a growing concern over what has -- I find it a somewhat
unfortunate term -- homegrown extremists. We try to address that. We
want a strategy that addresses that, no matter what the form it takes.

The other thing I would say to you is I think you'll find that it's far
more detailed in terms of our efforts related to WMD.

Q Following on that, you said that the report talks in greater detail
than made public before about efforts to deny WMD. Given that there's
been a concern within the administration about revealing to the
terrorists your methods for capturing them and for thwarting them, why
are you making this detail public now?

MS. TOWNSEND: Well, the report talks at a strategic level. What we
don't do is go into tactical details of implementation and execution.
There is a classified National Implementation Plan; there are supporting
-- classified supporting agency plans. And we will not go into those
details.

Q But why the emphasis in this report on that? And, also, is there
anything else in the report that you think of as especially new and
noteworthy?

MS. TOWNSEND: Well, we do talk about -- I think it's the way we framed
it that is the -- I'm trying to think of how to describe it -- that
makes it different. What we've talked about is giving you a better
framework, I think, based on our understanding, and all the things we've
heard and seen from al Qaeda and their reactions to the war effort, the
framework in which we attack this, how we view their vulnerabilities,
and the priority with which we take in terms of attacking them.

Q Along with the rise in the term "Islamic fascism," I noticed in the
Salt Lake speech the President did not use a term he'd used many times
before, that these terrorists had hijacked a great religion, that that
was missing. Given the two, can you see where some folks might believe
the administration is going after Islam directly?

MS. TOWNSEND: You know, if people have got a concern about Islam being
sullied -- frankly, a great religion being sullied, it's an anger that
ought to be directed at the terrorists. This is not an effort that we
focused on the great religion of Islam. This is really a fact of us
targeting those who would kill -- murder innocent women and children
because they believe that they have an ideological objective that
justifies it, and we just fundamentally disagree.

Q Ms. Townsend, you say that it's no longer a centralized
organization. Is this to suggest that there are a lot of freelance, if
you will, cells out there that are not taking orders from a specific
entity?

MS. TOWNSEND: I think you've got to be careful. I mean, I think -- the
tendency, in asking the question, is to ask, it's either, A, a very
centralized organization, or it is, B, that is, a disaggregated group of
otherwise not tied together individuals. I don't think it's either/or.
I think it can be both. And I think we see, as we progress through the
war, we see instances of both.

Q Is Osama bin Laden still capable of giving orders to his followers?

MS. TOWNSEND: He certainly inspires like-minded individuals around the
world. And in terms of his ability to give direct orders, I would
decline to answer it, only because of ongoing investigations.

Q Thank you. The report talks about a need for new thinking about
deterrence of -- state sponsors of terrorism and WMDs going into the
hands of terrorists. Where are we in that process? Does the United
States, as of today, have a new deterrent policy towards, say, Iran and
Syria? Could they expect massive retaliation if they were found to be
behind this --

MS. TOWNSEND: The counterterrorism strategy builds on the National
Security Strategy, which was issued in March. This is not meant to
contravene existing U.S. policy, particularly in regards to deterrence.

Yes, sir.

Q Can you say whether al Qaeda is less of a threat or more of a
threat to the United States today than it was five years ago?

MS. TOWNSEND: I think it would be fair to say to you that there should
be no question in anybody's mind that they continue to this day to
obsess about killing mass amounts of Americans and mass amounts of our
allies around the world. So their commitment to murder and their
commitment to terrorist acts is not any diminished.

We work against it every day, and we have -- I think where we have been
most successful is in undermining the capability for them to execute
those attacks and make good on those intentions. And so in that regard,
yes, I do think we're safer, but there's more to be done, and they are
very determined.

Q Over the weekend, Michael Scheuer, the former bin Laden guy at the
CIA, talked a lot about this recent tape with the American on it and
suggested he felt like that was a very ominous sort of harbinger, that
there could be an attack in the works because of some -- requirements,
warn your enemies, seek to convert, and that sort of thing. Can you
give any sense of the U.S. assessment of those tapes? Do you share that
concern that this could be an early warning of the --

MS. TOWNSEND: I think the basis of his statement, it is correct to say
that bin Laden was criticized throughout the Muslim world for not
giving, based on -- and I am not an expert in Koranic law, in sharia --
but bin Laden was criticized for not giving people the opportunity to
convert before attacking the United States on September 11th.

This is not the first time we've seen a tape where Americans, in
particular, were encouraged to convert. It is the first in which we've
seen Gadahn go on at this length and devote an entire tape to it. As
you recall, his October of '04 tape was quite bloody, in terms of the
rhetoric and the hateful speech. But what I would say to you is there
is always concern when we see these tapes. We don't see evidence the
tapes -- the release of tapes are directly tied to the timing of an
attack. But we look for clues, frankly, and we look to exploit what's
-- the tapes, themselves, and what's in them and their timing whenever
they come.

Q Fran, a follow-up on the al Qaeda threat question. Some experts on
al Qaeda say the U.S. isn't defending well enough against their play
book. They go back to the same terrorist attacks beginning again, such
as the train bombings in India and London; the liquid explosives plot is
also from their play book. Is the administration doing enough to counter
their known tactics?

MS. TOWNSEND: Well, let's talk about what we know -- they do go back to
-- particularly to failed targets, in particular. But we know that they
have particular interest in going back to known techniques. What they
do over time is they adjust those techniques to get past our defenses.
We've made enormous strides in aviation security at every level. It's
an entirely layered approach -- from curb to cockpit, you'll hear us
say.

There's no question that they continue to be obsessed with the aviation
target. And that's the reason that we've banned liquids. We watch very
carefully what their tactics and techniques are, and how they're
evolving. And, frankly, the U.K. bomb plot is a good example of how
we've stayed ahead of them as opposed to being reactive.

Q Has the President been apprised of any clues from the tape that
you've received, you know, from analyzing the --

MS. TOWNSEND: The analysis of the tape is continuing. The President is
obviously aware of the tape. And the analysis is continuing.

Q Five years removed from 9/11, as you go about your work, do you
sense a complacency in the American people about the possibility of
attacks?

MS. TOWNSEND: Thank you for asking me that. People often will ask me
what I think the greatest threat to the American people is, and putting
aside the quite obvious threat from Islamic extremism, I do worry about
complacency.

Look, I think we should be very -- we should take great pride and
satisfaction in the fact that we've not seen an attack in the last five
years, and that's a result of both our offensive actions overseas -- a
combination of the offense overseas and our defense here at home. But
we should not take that to mean -- and it would be tragic for us to take
that to mean that we have been wholly successful, and that we will not
see another attack.

The best recent example we've seen is this U.K. plot, which was
absolutely intended and designed to be an act of mass murder, a second
September 11th. And so there should be no doubt in anybody's mind,
while we have enjoyed safety over the last five years, there has been a
lot of work and a lot of effort gone into it by men and women whose
faces and names will never be known, and this is a long war. This is a
long effort in which we need not just the federal government, we need
our state and local partners and the American people to sustain it.

Q How does complacency makes your job harder?

MS. TOWNSEND: Well, I will tell you, you look at -- if you go back to
the facts of the September 11th case, and you realize these were people
who lived in our communities, who worked in our communities, who
traveled on our streets, the most likely contact -- if there's an enemy
inside the United States, the most likely contact is going to be with
the American public first and with state and local law enforcement
second. So you need people to be alert and aware of suspicious
activity. You need them to work with authorities to protect the
American people.

Q The report talks about (inaudible), and the importance of
(inaudible) in the fight against terror. And (inaudible) and conspiracy
theories that it mentioned in the report. How do you address the large,
wide perception in the Middle East that the unconditional support of the
United States to Israel, especially in the recent war in Lebanon -- how
do you address it as a component, when the (inaudible) by terrorists to
rally people around and to justify the war against American interests in
the region?

MS. TOWNSEND: Well, there's no question that our enemies will take some
discreet facts and turn them and try to make use of them. But there
should be no -- we've been quite clear: Israel was unprovoked in the
war against Hezbollah -- I'm sorry, Lebanon permitted the use by
Hezbollah of their territory, and Hezbollah used that territory to
provoke Israel with the kidnapping of two soldiers. The fact of the
matter is, Israel has been a friend of the United States; it is a
democracy and a model in the region. And so our support for that
democracy is just that: it's a support for the freedom and the
democracy and those principles in the region.

There should be no question that what we're standing for is a
fundamental principle of freedom and transparency, and the ability to
use that in the battle of ideas, to really make the case that it's that
transparency that will win the day and allow people to make good
choices.

Thanks, Tony.

MR. SNOW: Thank you. Okay, let's move to other questions. Deb.

Q Tony, neither one of you have addressed the political motivation of
these speeches. I mean, this issue has become a big part of the
campaign, and we're heading into the final stretch right now. Is there
-- you know, is there skepticism that the President is engaging in a
PRESIDENT offensive here on this issue? Is there no political
motivation in these speeches?

MR. SNOW: Let me put it this way. If it's a political motivation to
try to put forth a thoughtful document that lays out in a comprehensive
way the way in which we intend to win the war on terror -- and I defy
you to go through this document and look for political red meat; it's
not there -- then, okay, we'll plead guilty to politics.

But if you take a look at what you've been writing and what the people
in this room have been writing and reporting for the last two months,
what's the primary topic? It's the war. If you look at what Democratic
leaders did over Labor Day weekend, that would be a political act. What
the President -- what this is, is a document that has been months in the
preparation, and it is one that lays out for the American people a
thoughtful way of thinking about the most important issue of our time.
I think it belittles it by trying to dismiss it as politics.

And, again, I'd encourage you to read it, because this is not -- this is
not something that was timed to coincide with a letter from Democratic
leaders. It, in fact, is -- it's timed to coincide with the fact that
the report is done. It was an interagency process that took a long time
to do.

Now, I will tell you this --

Q But the timing is suspect, because today is the beginning of the
last final stretch of the campaign.

MR. SNOW: Do you think it's suspect to discuss in the final stretches
of the campaign the issues that are foremost in the mind of the American
public? I don't think it's suspect at all. I don't recall somebody
calling up Harry Reid and saying, this letter is suspect; Nancy Pelosi,
this letter is suspect, why are you doing this now? Instead -- and I
would encourage you to take a look at the speeches that are delivered
this week, and take a look at the documents that will be presented. And
I think what you're going to find is an attempt to be thoughtful, to be
as comprehensive as possible, and, furthermore, there will be an open
invitation for people on both sides of the aisle to roll up their
sleeves, because the war on terror is real, it's important, and we've
got to win it.

But it's also, as Fran just pointed out, a long war. One of the things
that you can sort of read into the document today is also -- and you'll
hear it in the President's speech later today -- what al Qaeda wants.
And if you think of what might happen if the United States were to leave
the Middle East without having completed the mission of supporting a
successful democracy in Iraq, and also pursuing the goal of a two-state
democracy with the Palestinians and the Israelis, what you have is the
prospect of failed states with large oil supplies in a region where they
can become launching pads for terrorist organizations that are going to
try to do what al Qaeda says it wants to do, which is to create a
(inaudible) that stretches from Asia to Andalusia. And this is
something that's of significance and importance.

So certainly it's an issue of political importance. Both political
parties are going to talk about it. It would be irresponsible not to
talk about it. But, also, the President's view is, talk about it in a
serious way. And that's why we're going to be supplying you with a lot
of information; you can do with it what you will.

David.

Q Hey, Tony, how are you?

MR. SNOW: Okay.

Q The President, in his last speech, made very clear that the
American people have a choice -- right? -- in the way forward in the war
on terror, which suggests, by definition, that he is trying to frame the
political debate for the midterm election when it comes to national
security. Is that fair?

MR. SNOW: I think both parties -- if you take a look again at the
letter --

Q But I'm asking about the President. I'm not asking about Democrat
-- you don't speak for Democrats. I'm asking about the President.

MR. SNOW: Well, but I'm trying to answer, because there are two parts
of this equation, David. There seems to be a presumption that if
Democrats make political points the President shouldn't respond because
that would be political. The President -- these are important issues,
and you can call it politics, you can call it whatever you want, but the
most important thing to do is to provide a basis for people to take a
look at the facts and reach thoughtful conclusions.

We do have a choice to make as a country: Are we going to acknowledge
that this is a long war, analogous to the Cold War in the sense that we
have a dispersed ideological following -- this is not one where, like in
World War II, or other wars, you have a grounded political enemy --

Q I'm not asking for the major points. I understand that. I'm
asking --

MR. SNOW: Well, it's important to talk about the major points --

Q Right. But you don't disagree that he's trying to frame the debate
for what is an important political choice?

MR. SNOW: Absolutely. Of course, of course.

Q Okay. There's so much emphasis by the President on his resolve and
on the consequences of failure, which seems to dovetail to the political
strategy of casting the vote as not a referendum on his leadership or
his conduct in the war on terror, leading the war on terror, but on a
choice between two parties and their visions. And I'm curious whether,
in this document, there's any reflection on the fact that this White
House, this administration failed to anticipate a violent
terrorist-based insurgency in Iraq, and also failed to adapt once it
learned of its presence? And shouldn't that be put before the voters
this fall?

MR. SNOW: I think you've admirably expressed the Democratic point of
view, but I don't think --

Q Actually, Tony, I don't think that's fair, if you look at the
facts. If you look at the facts.

MR. SNOW: Well, I do, because -- no, because, for instance --

Q No, no, no. No, I don't think you should be able to just wipe
that, kind of dismiss the question --

MR. SNOW: Well, let me --

Q It's not a Democratic argument, Tony.

MR. SNOW: Let me answer the question, David.

Q But hold on, let's not let you get away with saying that's a
Democratic argument.

MR. SNOW: Okay, let me -- let's not let you get away with being rude.
Let me just answer the question, and you can come back at me.

Q Excuse me. Don't point your finger at me. I'm not being rude.

MR. SNOW: Yes, you are.

Q Don't try to dismiss me as making a Democratic argument, Tony, when
I'm speaking fact.

MR. SNOW: Well, okay -- well, no --

Q You can do that to the Democrats; don't do it to me.

MR. SNOW: No, I'm doing it to you because the second part was factually
tendentious, okay? Now, when you were talking about the fact that it
failed to adapt, that's just flat wrong. And you will be -- there has
been -- there have been repeated attempts to try to adapt to military
realities, to diplomatic realities, to development of new weapons and
tools on the part of al Qaeda, including the very creative use of the
Internet. So the idea that somehow we're staying the course is just
wrong. It is absolutely wrong.

So that's why -- I apologize for interrupting, but I think it's
important to challenge that presumption. Now, did we fully anticipate
--

Q If you want to challenge that presumption -- no, no, wait a second.
If you want to challenge that presumption, why don't you describe in
some detail how you accurately anticipated the insurgency, and what was
done to deal with it at the time.

MR. SNOW: I was just about to go back to that part.

Q Okay.

MR. SNOW: See, there were two assumptions. I was taking --

Q No, you described me as rude in making a Democratic argument and
said --

MR. SNOW: Well, that's because I kept trying to answer the question,
and you kept jumping in. We need to come to an accommodation, because
I'm perfectly happy to take on both sides.

It is accurate to say that nobody fully anticipated what was going to
happen. However, you also -- if you go back to the days right after the
end of major combat, there was concern about the so-called dead-enders.
You may recall the Defense Secretary -- you may recall that Defense
Secretary Rumsfeld at the time was asking pointed questions about, what
does this mean? Are we creating enemies? You may recall that that was
one of the very early stories.

It does not serve our purposes to take a rosy-eyed view about what's
going on. It's irresponsible. What you have to do in a situation like
this is to realize that in any conflict there are going to be things
that you don't anticipate. It's just -- it's humanly impossible. And,
furthermore, there weren't a lot of people on Capitol Hill or elsewhere.
And in a time of war, you're not -- you do have to acknowledge in the
sense of going ahead and tackling problems that you didn't anticipate,
and trying to respond to new realities.

Part of what's going on in this report today -- and you missed Fran's
presentation -- is that this is a discussion about evolving strategies
and dealing with an evolving enemy. This is not a static picture; never
is, never will be. And so I think that you find that there are a lot of
different moving parts here.

You have diplomatic efforts that involve the government of Iraq and
governments throughout the region and governments throughout the world.
You have cultural angles where you're trying to make the argument about
-- you know, there was a debate here just a couple of minutes ago about
the term "Islamic fascism," or so on. This is not a slur against Islam;
it's a slur against people who try to use Islam as a shield for killing
people and suppressing human liberties.

You have efforts to go after it financially; you have efforts to try to
deny safe haven. In other words, it's a huge task with a lot of
different moving parts. And it would be unreasonable to expect that
something is going to be perfect throughout it, but it would be
reasonable to expect -- and this is what we've been trying to do -- is
to respond as the situation changes, and to find ways to deal
effectively with old problems and new ones.

Q Just one final point.

MR. SNOW: Yes.

Q Is it fair, in the context of this report that you're putting out
and the argument about the consequences of failure in Iraq, for voters
to judge this party which supported the war, and this President, on how
he has managed, and this government has managed, the war in Iraq?

MR. SNOW: We're perfectly happy to let people take a look not only at
how the government has managed the war in Iraq, but the other thing is
to keep in mind that both parties supported the war; 73 members of the
Senate voted for the resolution -- or was it 72? Knoller, you usually
know this stuff. Is it 72 or 73? It was a large number. You had large
majorities in the House of Representatives. You've had significant
support at various junctures for different parts of it.

I think it's important -- I think it's important, constructive and
necessary for us to debate not only the past conduct of the war, but the
future conduct of the war. So, no, I think it's absolutely legitimate
to have people draw conclusions based on this. As I said earlier,
you've got to ask which way of approaching the war on terror is going to
be more effective at guaranteeing American safety and security, and
also, in the long run, is going to create the kind of planet, the kind
of world in which people are going to be able to live in greater harmony
in the long run. So, yes, those are legitimate questions.

Q Tony, this report and these speeches not only coincide with the
kickoff of the election season, but also with the run-up to the 5th
anniversary of September 11th. That is a day that many Americans feel
should be reserved for solemn remembrance of those who died. Are you
not concerned that, in effect, the President is open to charges that he
is politicizing that day?

MR. SNOW: I don't think so -- no, I don't think so, because you'll have
to listen to what the President has to say on September 11th, won't we?
But I think --

Q But in the run-up he's coming just up to the edge of it, and will
take a momentary pause.

MR. SNOW: Well, do you think it's -- why would it be exploiting on the
President's half, and not exploiting when people are criticizing him
about the very same issues? No, there's a debate. I don't think it's
exploitative. The one thing that September 11th taught us is that not
only is evil present in the world, but terrorists mean business. And
both parties want the same thing, I believe -- certainly they say they
do -- which is to have an end to terror, and also to have American
troops back after you've got a successful conclusion in Iraq. The
question is, which way is going to lead you to those goals? What's the
most effective way to approach those? That is going to be a critical
issue in this election.

Far from besmirching the memories of September 11th, I think it's a way
of saying we're serious. We're serious about making sure that, to the
best of our ability, this never happens again. As Fran said, we're safe
-- we are safer, but not safe. But that we ought to devote every ounce
of our energy and will toward preventing repeat acts of terror on our
shores, but also for going after the terrorist network that openly
espouses it, has organized it, has tried to conduct it and has hit other
countries around the globe. That, to me, seems to be not only an
effective way of remembering those who died, but also to say that you
will not have died in vain.

Q And, finally, what's the big new thing in this report? What is new
about this report?

MR. SNOW: Read it. I will challenge you --

Q You've read it --

MR. SNOW: Well, no, it --

Q -- you tell me what you think is new.

MR. SNOW: The fact is that the world has changed considerably since
February of 2003. And what you have here is a comprehensive but not
nuts and bolts look -- again, we're not going to give away sources and
methods, it's not operational, but it is strategic. And it tells you
all the various different ways in which we are trying to fight the war
on terror, and the philosophy behind it -- not only the short-term
strategies but the long-term goals, and how we think it is best to
pursue and achieve those things.

Q I'm looking at the priorities -- I think there were four priorities
or so listed -- and it doesn't seem like there's anything so
groundbreaking there that couldn't have been written in February of
2003. So --

MR. SNOW: Well, no, actually -- no, no, because not only do you have
WMD, you also have -- look, at this time, in 2003, at this time in 2003,
we had not, in fact, completed restructuring our government in response
to the challenges raised by September 11th. We have done considerable
work, and it's described in here, in trying to reform our intelligence
apparatus, our military apparatus, to try to reform the way in which the
government goes about the business of trying to intercept and to foil
terror plots.

A considerable amount of things have changed. I mean, I suppose you
could say it hasn't changed, the principle is we want to stop terrorism.
That's true. But I think you will find that the look here is far more
comprehensive because they have more experience now. And also what's
happened is that the enemy has evolved. And I daresay that we will
continue, and we do continue each and every day to try to revisit what's
going on and, as David pointed out, what succeeds, what fails, and how
to move forward effectively.

Okay, a couple more and then I've got to go to the Oval. I apologize.

Q Tony, isn't it a little contradictory to say the President wants
Republicans and Democrats to return to that spirit post-September 11th,
in the days immediately afterwards and then have the administration
officials continue to try to paint the Democrats as the "cut and run"
party?

MR. SNOW: You haven't heard it from this podium. I think what you're
reflecting is some of the back and forth with members on the Hill who do
that. You know, it's an election season and they're going go do that.
But, look, we'd be perfectly happy -- there's one thing that we will not
accept, which is the notion of a phased -- it's not -- what term did
they use in the letter? I'll have to pull the letter out --

Q A phased redeployment?

MR. SNOW: A phased deployment -- no, you do a redeployment when the job
is done, when it's appropriate to do it. You don't do it according to a
timetable, you do it according to realities on the ground. Again, those
are -- but the President, I think, and we're going to have opportunities
to talk about this in coming days, how do you best foil them. How do
you conduct surveillance? How do you deal with some of the thorny
issues of dealing with terrorists? And we will be discussing those.
And there will be opportunities for both parties to work together.

Q What's the President's itinerary for next Monday?

MR. SNOW: I don't think we're quite -- are we ready to announce it yet?

Q Is he doing a prime-time speech, Tony?

MR. SNOW: We will be -- at this point, we haven't made any requests of
networks. We will let you know as the week proceeds.

Q But he will go to Shanksville and the Pentagon on Monday?

MS. PERINO: He'll visit all three sites.

MR. SNOW: Yes, he's going to visit all three sites, so he'll be all
three places. He'll be in New York, Pennsylvania, and the Pentagon on
Wednesday -- I mean on Monday.

Q Tony, just to follow on Elaine's point here, very briefly. I mean,
you have Secretary Rumsfeld's comments last week. You have this whole
debate about are people appeasing the latest in a long line of
totalitarians, and the Vice President has been out there, rather active
in suggesting about this sort of "cut and run" implications to opposing
the administration's efforts. So you're calling for this moment on
September 11th of national unity, this squandered chance, and yet look
at the run-up and the context, it hasn't just been laid maybe not at
this podium, but certainly from the White House.

MR. SNOW: Well, look, there has been a lot of -- there has been a lot
of conversation along those lines both ways, and there has been a lot of
attempts to make political hay with. I think what you try to do -- the
President, as leader, is going to try to reach and see what we -- there
is important business to be done, and he's going to hope for Democratic
support.

As far as the Rumsfeld speech, I've got it here. And what's interesting
about the Rumsfeld speech, again, it's a thoughtful speech that talks
about the hard nature of realities on the ground. What he talks about
is some of the questions you have to ask, and I'm not going to go
through it because I don't have time right now, but you and I can chat
if you want to call, or anybody else wants to call today.

But the fact is, the Rumsfeld speech, I think, is one of those that has
been singled out for criticism, quite often not fully in context. And I
saw Defense Secretary Rumsfeld's speech as something that is not an
attempt to be sort of calling out or picking fights, but to raise some
thoughtful questions about what goes on, on the ground.

Finally -- okay, one more for Olivier, and then we'll go.

Q Thank you. Tony, the report warns, as the administration always
has since 9/11, that those who support and harbor terrorists, there will
be no distinction between them and the terrorists. Another thing that
hadn't happened. The last time you put out a strategy like this was the
Palestinians hadn't yet elected Hamas, a Hamas government. Where are
the Palestinian people now on this spectrum of --

MR. SNOW: Well, again, you know, it was interesting because the Hamas
government was elected on a non-corruption platform. As I pointed out
before, what the Palestinian voters did was sort of ratify the
President's decision not to meet with Yasser Arafat because he was
stealing his people blind. And Hamas still has to make a choice about
whether it wants to pursue a political or a terror path.

And there have been -- as you know, there have been efforts on both
sides. And I think a lot of Palestinians are looking for a two-state
solution where they can live peaceably with the Israelis, and we hope
they succeed and we encourage all those efforts.